Musings, dreams, thoughtcrimes.

Offended feelings

DJ in Delhi makes an innocuous joke about Gorkhas, feelings in Darjeeling and Siliguri are duly offended, violence erupts. The government, instead of prosecuting those who caused the violence in North Bengal, bans the radio channel for a week.

I don’t know what to say. Each time such a thing happens it makes me so angry. When will freedom ever be a real issue in India, something that neither a troublemaker will dare breach nor the government dare curtail, something that would actually matter in the elections?

Advertisements

Share this:

Like this:

Related

9 Responses

Define innocuous. From what I know, it was a RJ of the station who called the Indian Idol winner a chowkidar to superstar story. or something like that He essentially called all Gorkhas chowkidars. You sure this is censorship? I don’t think so.

The RJ was trying to be funny. His statement was not unlike what many of us often make about Sardarjis, or Biharis for that matter. At worst, his joke was in poor taste. When the RJ learnt about the offence his statement had caused, he apologized immediately. Therefore, I called it innocuous and I stand by that. But my position on this matter would be the same even if the RJ had said it with malice.

I believe the RJ had the right to make the “chowkidar to superstar” statement. It is called freedom of expression. The people who heard it had the right to get offended. They also had the right to stop listening to Red FM, or complain to the radio channel, or denounce it in some other (peaceful) way. That is also called freedom of expression.

What they did not have the right to do was to cause violence. They had no business destroying porperty , injuring people, and causing inconvenience to thousands.

What the government did was to suppress freedom of expression. Yes, that is called censorship. Just like banning the Sardarji jokes book was censorship. Or banning FTV, AXN and the “The Satanic verses” for that matter.

My position is that ‘offended feelings’ are not a valid ground for censorship. I am surprised and disappointed that you do not seem to think so.

Not like Satanic Verses, etc. because those are not slander. Tell me, why this is not slander. Slander is almost universally not protected by free speech.

Red FM listeners had no reasonable expectation of hearing this before it was spoken. This is not unlike Janet Jackson’s slip and other such things. What broadcasts on public airwaves is universally regulated for slander, fighting words, incitement to crime, offensive programming without warning/rating and other such things. These are acceptable modifications to free speech. You would otherwise have anarchy.

The incident didn’t take place in the US, but since you brought in the topic, I should let you know that utterances such as the RJ’s neither quailifies as “fighting words” nor as slander. “Fighting words” covers a very narrow spectrum of utterances and this wouldn’t even come close to it. I am also almost certain that it would not be indicted under defamation laws(at least in the US), for several reasons. One of them is that the prosecution will find it impossible to prove that the statement wasn’t made as a joke or a opinion but was in fact making the explicit claim – “All Gorkhas are chowkidars” . In fact even if the RJ had said “I think Gorkhas are fit to be chowkidars only” he would still not be prosecuted under defamation, for that would be his opinion and defamation does not cover personal opinions. I should add that there have been actual examples of cases illustrating my points.

Another example I can provide is the very popular comedy serial “South Park” which often makes fun of religions, practices, ethnic groups etc. It makes outrageous and obviously false claims sometimes, and often depicts actual celebrities (like Paris Hilton) doing things they obviously dont do (Paris Hilton stuffs a pineapple into her vagina). In another episode they showed Jesus defecating on President Bush and the American flag. While South Park is controversial, and lot of people find it offensive, it has never been sued as far as I know, and trust me, if anyone tries, the lawsuit will not succeed. “South Park” has free speech on its side, and free speech has never led to anarchy.

To return to the point, I still don’t believe the RJ didn’t make a slanderous statement- but my position is that even if he did the government had no business banning the channel. The case would have come up to court, which would consider the evidence and pronounce judgement. What happened was a a gross violation of free speech and justice by a government that thinks it can do whatever it wants.